Skip to main content
Media centre

Fighting for justice for victims of historic sexual abuse

13 January 2015

 

A legal campaign to secure fair compensation for all victims of historic sexual abuse is receiving a groundswell of support and is being backed by two sisters who were abused by the same man, though only one is able to make a claim.

The Law Clinic at Teesside University is leading a landmark legal challenge to overturn what is commonly known as the ‘same roof rule’.

As well as victims of sexual abuse, it has also received backing from MPs and the charity Victim Support.

Currently, compensation is not paid if the criminal injury was sustained before 1 October 1979 and, at the time of the incident, the victim and the perpetrator were living together as members of the same family. The ‘same roof rule’, as it has become known, was designed to prevent the assailant benefiting from any compensation awarded. It was abolished on 1 October 1979, but victims abused before that date are not entitled to claim compensation retrospectively.

Teesside University Law Clinic, a student run legal advice service, has launched a legal challenge on behalf of one victim to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme in a bid to secure fair pay-outs for historic sex abuse victims. It has also started a petition which is gathering a groundswell of support.

Mrs W (name adopted to protect anonymity) has been left angry and hurt by the same roof rule after she and her sister gained the courage to tell police about the abuse they suffered.

Both were abused by the same man over a period of time – one before the abolishment of the rule in 1979 and one afterwards. It was only after the death of their abuser last year that the sisters decided to speak out about their ordeal.

'It took a great deal of courage to report these crimes and it has been an extremely painful process for us,' explained Mrs W.

'To then find out that the rules state that only one of us is worthy of compensation, because the abolition of the same roof rule in 1979 was not made retrospective, was like a kick in the teeth to both of us.

'My sister is so angry at this flawed system that she has not yet decided whether she even wants to make a claim. I feel extremely upset that after all we have been through, and are still going through, as the damage done is hard to erase, that we have this further battle to fight.'

Andrew Perriman, a Senior Law Lecturer at Teesside University, runs Teesside University Law Clinic and has been meeting with MPs and victim support groups to raise awareness about the same roof rule.

He said: 'We are representing a client whose case is proceeding through the courts and it is the first step on a long journey to secure compensation for victims of historic sexual abuse. If the case is successful it will be a catalyst for other claimants.

'Very rarely does an opportunity arise when lawyers actually get a chance to change the law and the fact that the law students at Teesside University Law Clinic are fighting for such an important change is hugely significant.' As well as the court case, Andrew has also started a petition and his campaign is gathering momentum, with MPs on board and planning to raise the issue in Parliament.

Middlesbrough Labour MP Andy McDonald said: 'While Parliament has already considered failures in our system and measures that need to be taken, coupled with robust joint action locally, we must at the same time ensure the law is fair and does not discriminate against victims of abuse at whatever time in their lives that might have happened.

'That’s why I am backing Teesside University Law Clinic and the campaign they have launched and will also be happy to help press the matter in Parliament on this vitally important issue.'

Tom Blenkinsop, Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland, is also backing the campaign, arguing that there is a glaring legal anomaly for the abuse that needs to be changed.

'The victims of these heinous crimes deserve nothing less,' said Mr Blenkinsop.

'At present an application for criminal injuries compensation by an abused person can only be made by men or women who were abused within a family setting after 1 October 1979. This is plain wrong. As we know, it takes time and courage for victims to come forward. In consequence I suspect that there are many, many people who are still denied compensation for their suffering.'

Mrs W added: 'I can understand why the same roof rule was originally drafted - to stop the abuser from potentially benefiting from compensation claimed by, say, a partner who continued to live with him. 'However, this rule was clearly drafted too widely preventing abused children, who no longer live under the same roof as the abuser, from claiming compensation, which I am sure was never the intention. 'Clearly, in our situation, the same roof rule not being made retrospective is absurd and wrong. My sister and I both suffered the same abuse, at the same age, at the hands of the same man and are both still suffering the long-term effects of that abuse today.

'Why should one sister be entitled to bring a claim and the other not, purely because we are different ages? This is completely unjust and the sooner this error in the law is corrected, the better.'

Johanna Parks, Divisional Manager for the charity Victim Support in Teesside, said many more victims of historic sexual abuse have found the courage and confidence to come forward in recent years. She added: 'It is completely unacceptable that some of them should be discriminated against by this unfair rule which penalises them for something beyond their control and we strongly support the campaign to abolish it.

'These victims were extremely vulnerable at the time of their abuse, and the fact they were exploited by someone who they trusted, and should have protected them, should not be a reason to deny them compensation.'

Andrew Perriman said: 'Where victims are treated differently by virtue of the date in which they were abused, it is morally and ethically wrong and changes are required to ensure fairness for all victims.'

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: 'The so called 'same roof rule' was part of the original Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme and was introduced to stop offenders benefiting from compensation paid to victims who lived with them. 'It was amended in 1979 so the restriction only applied to adults who remained living together after the incident. This was to protect payments to the most seriously injured victims of crime, while reducing the burden on the taxpayer.

'We sympathise with anyone who has been the victim of abuse but we cannot comment on individual cases.'


Find out more about the same roof rule and sign the petition
 
 
Go to top menu